ML20071H046

Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue Re Contentions 9(c) & (F) on Emergency Plans

ML20071H046
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	05/23/1983
From:	Edgar G, Luck W ENERGY, DEPT. OF, PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORP.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8305240480
Download: ML20071H046 (3)

Text

..

e 5/23/83 s, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6 N

/N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION /84 4

D. #

BEFORE THE r % ',p ., . 3 ATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOARD^p/g/g vy A

{

i -'s ,'

.K j/

In the Matter of

) u? '

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY )

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION )

Docket No. 50-537 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) '

, )

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) )

APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE TO BE HEARD Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.749(a), the United States Department of Energy and Project Management Corporation, for themselves and for the Tennessee Valley Authority (the

Applicants) submit this statement of material facts as an annex to Applicants' Motion for Partial Summary Disposition on Intervenors' Contentions 9(c) and 9(f).

1. Intervenors' Contentions 9(c) and 9(f) allege:

Neither Applicants nor Staff have demonstrated that Applicants' plans for coping with emergencies are adequate to meet NRC requirements, (c) The PSAR contains insufficient <

analysis of the time required to evacuate various sectors and distances within the plume exposure pathway EPZ for transient and permanent populations, nor does it note major impediments to the evacuation or taking of pro-tective actions.

b 0305240400 830523

{DRADOCK 05000537 PDR

._ . = _ _ -_ . . .

I (f) Applicants' proposed emergency plans fail to take into account the special measures necessary to cope with a CDA, including the need for increased protective, evacuation and monitoring measures, reduced response time and special protective action levels.

2. The only basis for Intervenors' allegation in Contention 9(c) that the PSAR contains insufficient analysis of the time requirement to evacuate various sectors and distances within the plume exposure pathway EPZ for transient and permanent populations, is that the PSAR analysis of evacuation times is limited to a ten mile EPZ. See, Response of Intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and the Sierra Club to Applicants' 10th Set of Interrogatories at 9-10.

3. Contention 9(c) does not challenge the adequacy of the PSAR evacuation time analysis based upon a 10 mile EPZ. See, May 12, 1983 Deposition of Dr. Thomas Cochran by the NRC Staff, TR 74, 123-124.

4. Intervenors' Contentions 9(c) and 9(f) are based on Intervenors' belief that the 10 mile plume exposure i

pathway EPZ established by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E may be inappropriate. See, May 13, 1983 Deposition of Thomas Cochran by Applicants, TR 8-9.

5. Intervenors have not advanced any factual basis for the proposition that the 10 mile EPZ would not be adequate for CRBRP.

i

(

6. The 10 mile EPZ is prescribed by Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. See, 10 C.F.R. 550.47 and Part 50, Appendix E.

7. 10 C.F.R. 52.758 precludes challenges to Commission regulations in the CRBRP licensing proceedings.

Respectfully submitted, George L. fdgar ff Attorney for V Project Management Corporation

, L4/ .

William D. Luck Attorney for the U. S. Department of Energy DATED: May 23, 1983 t

l -

- - . . . , . - - - , _ . . . . - - - . . - , - . - ,, , . . , . , . - , , , , , - , , , - - , .,.